First of all, I'm not going to say I "hate" Call of Duty. It's just that I have zero interest in that series. What I do hate is the business model behind that series. Second, despite the fact that I'm 30 years old, I do not let nostalgia blind me. I think I have a good sense in what has aged well over the years and what has not.
That being said, as someone who's been gaming for over 25 years, I've experienced a lot. One thing that I have noticed in recent years is the lack of fresh games in the mainstream market. I don't simply mean original IP's. I mean games in general because sequels can be just as new and refreshing as an original IP. When growing up, it seemed like every time you turned your head, something new and exciting was happening. Think of it this way. In 1991, you had Street Fighter II. In 1992, you had Mortal Kombat. In 1993, you had Virtua Fighter. Within 2 years, three fighting games came along that revolutionized that genre of games in their own way and each game was easily distinguishable from one another. That's just one example. This kind of thing was happening with almost every game genre.
You don't see that anymore. Just recently, I recalled seeing promos for the latest Battlefield game. I remember thinking to myself that if they had removed the title of the game from the promo, I would have no idea what that game was supposed to be. It could be Call of Duty or several other games. A lot of games now look a like, are marketed alike, and many of them play alike. I know part of the issue is technology. Technology was progressing differently 25 years ago. Back then, upgraded technology meant new experiences. Nowadays, upgraded technology means that older experiences run more smoothly. Nowadays, newer technology is about creating better services rather than newer experiences. I'm not criticizing this. It's just the way it is. The big problem is the state of the industry. Big AAA games are more or less made by marketing executives. Also, because they're are more costly, making games that are more familiar to players is the safer bet.
By comparison, Nintendo and Sega did the exact opposite with Mario and Sonic. Mario and Sonic shared only the same basic genre and the fact that they were mascots for two big brands. Other than that, they were entirely different from one another on every level. They didn't compete with one another based on their likenesses. They competed based on their differences. The people behind marketing at Nintendo and Sega used these differences to try and convince consumers that one was better than the other. That's what is missing from gaming today. That's where we need to get back to.
Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com
